In a study, the Center for Public Integrity argues “the largest non-cable internet providers collectively offer faster speeds to about 40 percent of the population they serve nationwide in wealthy areas compared with just 22 percent of the population in poor areas.”

The argument is that the large telcos have rather systematically targeted network upgrades to “wealthier” communities, compared to “poorer” communities.

There is statistical truth to those claims. Any analysis of urban-rural Internet access speeds would show that rural speeds are generally much slower than urban speeds, and that urban household incomes are generally higher than rural incomes.

Hence, it is is statistically correct to argue that speeds are, in fact, faster in urban (wealthier) areas, compared to rural (poorer) areas.

It might also be correct to argue that top speeds in some poorer neighborhoods are slower than top speeds in more-upscale neighborhoods.

The reality is that several obvious issues are at work. Telco copper network speeds are distance sensitive. That is one reason why rural networks have been “slower” than urban networks, as a rule.

Customer density is far lower in rural areas, which is why it is hard to justify the same investment in rural areas, compared to urban areas.

Also, upgrading even some urban properties--especially multiple dwelling units--is less than straightforward, as building owners can block or delay installation of new facilities.

Beyond all that, communications policy related to Internet access facilities never has been governed by “common carrier” regulation that mandates universal access and comparable prices for the same classes of service, or even minimum levels of service.

In fact, precisely because incentives matter, where it comes to next-generation facilities, mobile and fixed service providers have traditionally had more leeway to build facilities in some areas first, in other areas later, to avoid building, in many cases.

Service providers are free, for example, to build new networks to serve business customers only, and not consumers; large businesses in preference to small businesses; or businesses in some areas and not others.

In fact, municipal authorities now have taken that same approach and applied it to next generation networks serving consumers. That is why Google Fiber is allowed to build in some neighborhoods, and not others, or to build first in some neighborhoods, and not others.

That approach has changed AT&T and Verizon thinking about deployment of fiber to home and gigabit networks, as well. Building first where there is higher demand drives more investment. It also means disparities will widen, for a time.

So, yes, the CPI study does show disparities. But the explanation is partly for reasons of regulatory frameworks, incentives for investment, the physical properties of telco copper networks, population density, property owner rights and end user demand for services, as well as income disparities.

That is not to condone the disparities. But it is a reality of the business model that networks are far more expensive in rural areas than urban areas, while demand is more robust in business customer segments than consumer; higher in wealthier neighborhoods than poorer ones.

There likely are disparities by age, marital status, children in household and regional differences, as well.

As this analysis by the FCC shows, high population density means affordable network cost. Conversely, low population density means high network cost.

Popular posts from this blog

You can see where this is going. Younger users text more than they talk, and though today's users 25 and above still talk more than they text, the usage pattern is uniform: younger age cohorts text more than older age cohorts.

So as each age cohort advances, one might predict that texting behavior will grow over time. How much it grows is the only real question.

Users 18 or younger actually"talk" about as much as users 55 to 64. One suspects an awful lot of "voice" activity is of the coordination and collaboration sort, so that younger and mid-life workers might be in work groups that require more coordination than workers 55 to 64.

By now, telecom executives are well aware of the “disruption” market strategy, whereby new entrants do not so much try and “take market share” as they attempt to literally destroy existing markets and recreate them. Skype and VoIP provider one example. The “Free” services run by Illiad provide other examples. Most recently, we have seen Reliance Jio disrupting the economics of the mobile market in India, offering free voice in a market where voice drives service provider revenues. “Free” is a difficult price point in most markets. But free voice forever is among the pricing and packaging foundations for Reliance Jio’s fierce attack on India’s mobile market structure. “Free voice” does not only lead to Jio taking market share, but reshapes the market, destroying the foundation of its competitor business models. At the same time, Jio hopes to become the leader in the new market, driven by mobile data, with far-higher usage and subscribership, and vastly-lower prices. source: GSMADisruption…

“Take the package” (early retirement) quipped Tony Mosley, Ocean Specialists director of business development, after a review of major trends in the global telecom business at the latest PTC Academy program in Bangkok, Thailand.

Mosley's playful retort came just before students developed a list of key challenges they would face as new CEOs of their own retail businesses.

The work teams came up with a list of six major issues they would have to confront: Margin compression Regulation Over the top services Differentiation Spectrum Convergence As part of the three-day program, students (mid-career telecom professionals) are exposed to the business challenges leaders of businesses confront, and how they work to overcome those obstacles.

As always is the case, there was debate about whether it is possible to “move up the stack,” adding value and perhaps occupying new niches in the business ecosystem, to boost revenue and raise margins. At the concluding session, students were immersed in thinking…

Gary Kim has been a communications industry analyst and journalist for more than 25 years, and currently works mostly as a content developer (marketing copy, white papers, applied research, conference and blog content).

He speaks often at industry events, has written one book and a half dozen major market studies and 14,000 articles.

His work is noted for its examination of business model issues, especially wireless and mobile.

He recently founded the Spectrum Futures conference for the Pacific Telecommunications Council.

He was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes; ranked second in the world for strategic coverage of the mobile business.

He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top 2 percent.